bibliothèque du musée del’Homme àParis. membres –Les SPF dela – deservices ont riche accèsà la bibliothèque endépôt àla mise Société, de la épuisé) ou enlibrairie. réduction de20%pour lesmembres SPF dela ettéléchargement gratuit au format PDF lorsque l’ouvrage est ros du Bulletin Commission du Bronze annuel. Les autresLes annuel. publications SPFde la – d’actualités scientifiques et une La diffusionautreSociété. se dufait lavie dela sur bulletin parabonnement prend, enquatre livraisons de200pages chacune environ, desarticles,comptes rendus, une rubrique – d’information etdedocumentation scientifiques Bulletin –Le préhistorique Société la de française préhistorique membres Société bénéficient : la Les de française vellement du partiel fait conseil se àcette occasion. compte gestiondevant dela membres Société dela ses etàceux-cidel’interpeller directement. renou Le - et s’accompagne toujours d’une réunion scientifique. permet Elle au conseil d’administration de rendre – à l’assemblée générale annuelle – L’assemblée générale réunit se en début d’année, en région parisienne, Depuis 1984,lescongrès tiennent se sur desthèmes particuliers actuellement tous lesquatre ans environ. sont actes Leurs publiés préhistorique par Société la française. – aux Congrès préhistoriques deFrance déroulent –Ils se régulièrement depuis création la Société, dela ; particulier récents ou synthèses sur une problématique encours dans derecherche unsecteur en ou une période réunionsCes portent bilans sur desthèmes variés : régionaux ou nationaux sur lesdécouvertes ettravaux pays limitrophes. programme Le annuel est annoncé dans lepremier Bulletin – aux –PlusieursSociété scientifiques séances la de ont séances lieuchaque année, enFrance ou dans les Tous préhistorique membres les Société peuvent la participer : de française en France etdans lemonde, abonnées au Bulletin préhistorique Société la de française actuellement plus membres, demille etprès decinq cents bibliothèques, universités ou associations sont, Reconnue d’utilité publique aobtenu en1910,elle legrand prix del’Archéologie compte en1982.Elle préhistorique Société La française, fondée en1904,est une desplus anciennes d’archéologie. sociétés laire-adhesion-et-ou-abonnement-spf-2014.html). préhistorique Société la de française poursuivre cesactivités dediffusionscientifique adhérent en à l’association eten vousabonnant auBulletin coût (secrétariat d’édition, enpage, mise enligne, mise gestion du site internet) :vous pouvez aider SPF la à publication papier etnon Par périodiques périodiques. ailleurs, même enligne, cespublications ont un ces publications disposent d’un ISBN et font l’objet d’une évaluation scientifique au mêmetitre que nos Séances Conforméméent préhistorique à ces principes, Société la française de proposer a décidé les actes des les coûts defabrication etdediffusionses de publications. par une activité commerciale mais doit recevoir une rémunération pour compenser coûts ses degestion et nis dans statuts, ses est defaciliter publication la destravaux membres. deses ne cherche Elle leprofit pas association àbut non lucratif régie par loi la de1901etreconnue d’utilité publique, dont l’un desbuts, défi- articles etouvrages scientifiquessans encompromettrela La académique.qualitéla liberté SPF ni est une préhistorique Société La française considère qu’il est del’intérêt général depermettre unlarge accèsaux enparticulier.période vertes ettravaux récents ou synthèses sur une problématique encours dansderecherche unsecteur ou une d’une ou portent elles deuxjournées, sur desthèmes variés :bilans régionaux ou nationaux sur lesdécou- préhistorique Société sont la de organisées française Séances deuxàtroisLes fois par an. D’une durée dons en et suscitant autour nouvelles adhésions de vous. de vos notre par cotisations, de adhérents. ses Société par vie Contribuez des àla par versées préhistorique 1901,sans but loi cotisations la de par des lucratif, Société vit Régie la française en téléchargement gratuit sous forme defichiers au format PDF interactif. Bien qu’en libre accès, LES SÉANCESPRÉHISTORIQUE SOCIÉTÉ DE LA FRANÇAISE –sont disponibles au préhistorique siège Société dela française, sur son site web (avec une , LA SOCIÉTÉ PRÉHISTORIQUE SOCIÉTÉ LA FRANÇAISE Actes desCongrès, (voir au dosou sur http://www.prehistoire.org/form/515/736/formu- Mémoires, Tables etindex bibliographiques ainsi que lesanciens numé- Travaux, ; , fascicules des , fascicules Séances etrappelé régulièrement . Typologies de la com - .

société prÉhistorique française société prÉhistorique française **** des membresquis’abonnent pourlatoutepremièrefoiset estvalableunanuniquement(neconcerne paslesréabonnements). L’abonnement papierdonneaccèsauxversions numériques(numérosencours etanciens). pour les membres de la Prehistoric Society, joindre une copie de la carte de membre *** Italie, Lettonie,Lituanie,Luxembourg, Malte,Pays-Bas,Portugal,Slovaquie, Slovénie. * Cryptogramme (3dernierschiffres) N° decartebancaire ** par courrieroue-mailenfind’année, ouentoutdébutdelanouvelleannée,votrelettredémission. TÉLÉPHONE ADRESSE COMPLÈTE NOM q RIB • France 15, cedex Paris 75900 Bourseul, 0040644J020 86•IBAN rue 11, • financier centre IDF Paris • Postale Banque La à virement Paiement parchèquelibelléaunomdelaSociétépréhistoriquefrançaise, parcartedecrédit(Visa, Mastercardet Eurocard)oupar ...... Merci d’indiquer lespériode(s)oudomaine(s)quivousintéresse(nt) plusparticulièrement q V E-MAIL ture acquitéeouletimbreSPFdel’annéeencours,etaubesoinunenouvelle cartedemembre. fac- une fiscal, reçu un recevoir souhaitez vous précisant en coordonnées vos avec vigueur) en (tarif timbrée enveloppe une envoyer Toute réclamation d’un bulletin non reçudel’abonnement en coursdoitsefaireauplustarddansl’année qui suit.Mercidetoujours Adhésion seuleàla OU Abonnement papieretélectroniqueau OU Adhésion àlaSociétépréhistoriquefrançaise Abonnement papierau 2. PERSONNESMORALES Adhésion àlaSociétépréhistoriquefrançaise 1. PERSONNESPHYSIQUES ou paiement

: Pourunemeilleure ne souhaitezpasrenouvelergestion del’association,sivousvotre abonnement,mercidebienvouloirenvoyer OUS

➢ demandeurs d’emploi,membresdelaPrehistoricSociety***) ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ tarif réduit(premierabonnement,étudiants,moinsde26ans, ➢ Cartebancaire :

a : Zone euro de l’Union européenne

abonnement annuel(sansadhésion) associations archéologiquesfrançaises cotisation annuelle abonnement électroniqueseul(PDF)**** abonnement papier cotisation annuelle autres personnesmorales Pour les moins de 26 ans, joindre une copie d’une pièce d’identité : L’abonnementphysiques personnes qu’aux accessible n’est électronique

: Ê . d ......

TES : ...... hésion et abonne par courrier Date

: : q

. : ......

Date d’adhésionet ...... Le réabonnementestreconduitautomatiquementd’annéeenannée*. « « Société préhistoriquefrançaise

: FR0720041000010040644J02086•BIC

Pôle éditorial,boîte41,21alléedel’Université,92023Nanterre cedex bénévole professionnel :

etélectronique/ Bulletin delaSociétépréhistoriquefrançaise**** ⎵

: formulairepapierànousretournerl’adressedegestionetcorrespondancelaSPF

: ...... ⎵

»

BSPF, Maison del’archéologie etdel’ethnologie : q Allemagne, Autriche, Belgique, Chypre, Espagne, Estonie, Finlande, France, Grèce, Irlande,

» (votreorganisme derattachement) «

/oud’abonnemen q BulletindelaSociétépréhistoriquefrançaise****

: ⎵ étudiant

renouvellement CBnationale www.prehistoire.org Paiement etabonnementau , signature

» q Date d’expiration en ligne «

autre t DATE DENAISSANCE

q

: ; : PRÉNOM pour les demandeurs d’emploi, joindre un justificatif de Pôle emploi q ⎵ /

Mastercard » (préciser) sécurisésur q

: PSSTFRPPPAR. numériqueseul Papier+numérique Bulletin delaSociétépréhistoriquefrançaise

; il donne accès également aux numéros anciens du anciens numéros aux également accès donne il

;

le tarif « :

:

⎵ /signature

...... : : ......

premier q m Visa

: abonnement ent 2018 ⎵ / q q q q q q q q Zone 30 90 50 80 40 30 155 120

* Hors zone €**

» :

: profite exclusivement à profite exclusivement

€ € € € € €

€ € q q q q q q q

: 20041 00001 00001 20041 30 95 50 85 45 30 165 Bulletin.

€ € € € € €

€ €

:

;

Séances de la Société préhistorique française 12

Creuser au Mésolithique

Digging in the

Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française

Châlons-en-Champagne

29-30 mars 2016

Textes publiés sous la direction de Nathalie Achard-Corompt, Emmanuel Ghesquière et Vincent Riquier

Société préhistorique française Paris 2017 Les « Séances de la Société préhistorique française » sont des publications en ligne disponibles sur :

www.prehistoire.org

Illustration de couverture : Chouilly « la Haute Borne », Marne (cliché Vincent Riquier, INRAP)

• Responsables des réunions scientifiques de la SPF : Jacques Jaubert, José Gomez de Soto, Jean-Pierre Fagnart et Cyril Montoya Directeur de la publication : Jean-Marc Pétillon Révision du texte : Karoline Mazurié de Keroualin (www.linarkeo.com) Maquette et mise en page : Franck Barbary et Martin Sauvage (USR 3225, Maison Archéologie et Ethnologie, Nanterre) Mise en ligne : Ludovic Mevel • Société préhistorique française (reconnue d’utilité publique, décret du 28 juillet 1910). Grand Prix de l’Archéologie 1982. Siège social : 22, rue Saint-Ambroise, 75011 Paris Tél. : 01 43 57 16 97 – Fax : 01 43 57 73 95 – Mél. : [email protected] Site internet : www.prehistoire.org

Adresse de gestion et de correspondance Maison de l’archéologie et de l’ethnologie, Pôle éditorial, boîte 41, 21 allée de l’Université, F-92023 Nanterre cedex Tél. : 01 46 69 24 44 La Banque Postale Paris 406-44 J

Publié avec le concours du ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (sous-direction de l’Archéologie), du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, du Centre national du Livre, de l'Institut national de recherches archéologiques préventives, de la direction régionale des Affaires culturelles de Champagne-Ardenne, de Cités en Champagne, communauté d'agglomération de Châlons-en-Champagne et de l'association Promouvoir l'archéologie de la Préhistoire et de la Protohistoire en Champagne-Ardenne

© Société préhistorique française, Paris, 2017. Tous droits réservés, reproduction et diffusion interdite sans autorisation.

Dépôt légal : 4e trimestre 2017

ISSN : 2263-3847 – ISBN : 2-913745-73-3 (en ligne) SOMMAIRE / CONTENTS

Frédéric Séara, Anne Augereau et Jean-Paul Demoule — Préfaces / Forewords...... 7

Nathalie Achard-Corompt, Emmanuel Ghesquière, Christophe Laurelut, Charlotte Leduc, Arnaud Rémy, Isabelle Richard, Vincent Riquier, Luc Sanson et Julia Wattez — Des fosses par centaines, une nouvelle vision du Mésolithique en Champagne : analyse et cartographie d’un phénomène insoupçonné / Hundreds of Pits, a New Vision of the Mesolithic in Champagne: Analysis and Mapping of an Unexpected Phenomenon ...... 11

Nathalie Achard-Corompt — Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré « le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence » (Marne) : un gisement de fosses du Mésolithique / The site of Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré ‘le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence’ (Marne Department): a Mesolithic Pit Site ...... 27

Emmanuel Ghesquière avec la collaboration de Nathalie Achard-Corompt — Le mobilier lithique des fosses mésolithiques de Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré « le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence » (Marne) et de Rônai – La Hoguette (Orne) / The Lithic Material from the Mesolithic Pits at Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré ‘le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence’ (Marne Department) and Rônai – La Hoguette (Orne Department) ...... 45

Charlotte Leduc et Nathalie Achard-Corompt — Apport des études archéozoologiques à la compréhension de la nature et du fonctionnement des fosses mésolithiques : l’exemple de Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré « le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence » (Marne) / Contribution of Zooarchaeological Studies to the Understanding of Mesolithic Pits: the Case Study of Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré ‘le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence’ (Marne Department) ...... 59

Salomé Granai et Nathalie Achard-Corompt — Environnement, datation et fonctionnement des fosses mésolithiques de Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré « le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence » (Marne) : les réponses des malacofaunes continentales / Environment, Dating and Use of the Mesolithic Pits of Recy – Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré ‘le Mont Grenier – Parc de Référence’ (Marne Department): the Contribution of the Continental Malacofauna ...... 69

Julia Wattez, Marylise Onfray et Céline Coussot – Géoarchéologie des fosses profondes mésolithiques : des aménagements pour quels usages ? / Geoarchaeology of Mesolithic Deep Pits: What Were these Features Used for? ...... 87

Arnaud Rémy — Le gisement mésolithique de Chouilly « la Haute Borne » (Marne) / The Mesolithic Site of Chouilly ‘la Haute Borne’ (Marne Department) ...... 99

Mahaut Digan et Salomé Granai, avec la collaboration de Charlotte Leduc, Aurélie Salavert et Julia Wattez — Le « Fossé Dort » à Torvilliers (Aube) : des fosses du Mésolithique creusées dans la craie / The ‘Fossé Dort’ Site at Torvilliers (Aube Department): Mesolithic Pits Dug into Chalk Formations ...... 107

Isabelle Richard, avec la collaboration de Valentina Bellavia, Emmanuel Ghesquière, Salomé Granai, Julia Wattez et Julian Wiethold — Témoins d’activités humaines au Mésolithique à Rouilly-Saint-Loup « Champ-Saint-Loup » (Aube) / Evidence of Human Activity during the Mesolithic at Rouilly-Saint-Loup ‘Champ-Saint-Loup’ (Aube Department) ...... 115

Luc Sanson et Marylise Onfray — Les fosses mésolithiques de Lesmont « Pôle scolaire » (Aube) / Mesolithic Pits at Lesmont ‘Pôle scolaire’ (Aube Department) ...... 121

Grégor Marchand — Inventaire et interprétation des structures en creux des sites mésolithiques de France atlantique / Inventory and Interpretation of the Mesolithic Pits of Atlantic France ...... 129

Laurent Juhel — Un ensemble de fosses mésolithiques dominant la vallée du Léguer à Lannion « Kervouric » (Bretagne) / A Group of Mesolithic Pits Overlooking the Léguer Valley at Lannion ‘Kervouric’ (Brittany) ...... 147 Christian Verjux — Les structures en creux au Mésolithique : l’hypothèse du stockage enterré de fruits à coque / Mesolithic Dug Structures: the Hypothesis of Underground Nut Storage ...... 155

Thierry Ducrocq — Vue d’ensemble des fosses mésolithiques dans les Hauts-de-France / Overview of the Mesolithic Pits in the Hauts-de-France Region ...... 173

Florent Jodry – « Those who dig »… une découverte inattendue à Schnersheim (Bas-Rhin) : une fosse du Mésolithique avec dépôt de chevreuil / ‘Those Who Dig’… an Unexpected Discovery at Schnersheim (Bas-Rhin Department): a Mesolithic Pit Containing Roe Deer Remains ...... 189

Vincent Riquier, avec la collaboration de Nathalie Achard-Corompt, Bruno Aubry, Valérie Audé, Ginette Auxiette, Grégoire Bailleux, Stéphane Blanchet, Alexandre Burgevin, Jérémy Dolbois, Damien Ertlen, Kai Fechner, Anne Gebhardt, Emmanuel Ghesquière, Guillaume Hulin, Christophe Laurelut, Charlotte Leduc, Yann Lorin, Christophe Maitay, Cyril Marcigny, Fabrice Marti, Matthieu Michler, Bertrand Poissonnier, Karine Raynaud, Arnaud Rémy, Isabelle Richard, Luc Sanson, Nathalie Schneider, Yohann Thomas, Nicolas Valdeyron et Julia Wattez — Les systèmes de fosses profondes à la Pré- et Protohistoire : cartographie des fosses mésolithiques et des Schlitzgruben à l’échelle nationale / Complexes of Deep Pits in Pre- and Protohistory: Mapping Mesolithic Pits and Schlitzgruben Features at a National Scale ...... 195

Jan Vanmoerkerke — Détecter, reconnaître, identifier et dater les structures archéologiques indéterminées : un préalable et une priorité non reconnus dans la programmation de la recherche archéologique française / Detecting, Identifying and Dating Unknown Archaeological Features: an Under-Estimated Prerequisite and Priority in Research Agendas, Especially in France ...... 205

Edward Blinkhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren — Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and : Comparative Perspectives on a Widespread Practice / Le creusement et comblement de fosses durant le Mésolithique en Angleterre et en Irlande : perspectives comparatives sur une pratique très répandue ...... 211

Hans Peeters and Marcel J. L. T. Niekus — Mesolithic Pit in the Northern Netherlands: Function, Time-Depth and Behavioural Context / Les foyers en fosse mésolithiques dans le Nord des Pays-Bas : fonction, datation et approche comportementale ...... 225

Birgit Gehlen, Klaus Gerken and Werner Schön — Mesolithic Pits in Germany: an Initial Overview / Les fosses mésolithiques en Allemagne : une première vue d’ensemble ...... 241

Eileen Eckmeier, Susanne Friederich and Renate Gerlach — A New Perspective on Schlitzgruben Features in Germany / Un nouvel éclairage sur les caractéristiques des fosses de type Schlitzgruben en Allemagne ...... 245

Takashi Inada et Christophe Cupillard — Les structures en creux et les fosses-pièges au Japon, du Paléolithique à la fin de la période Jōmon : un bilan actuel des connaissances / The Pit Features and Pitfalls in Japan, rom the Palaeolithic to the End of the Jomon Period: the Current State of Research ...... 255

Postfaces / Afterwords

Christian Verjux — Des fosses par milliers au Mésolithique : vers un changement de paradigme ? / Thousands of Pits in the Mesolithic: towards a Paradigm Shift? ...... 273

Salomé Granai — Quelles questions poser ? / What Are the Questions to Ask? ...... 274

Emmanuel Ghesquière — Les fosses cylindriques-coniques mésolithiques font-elles bouger les lignes de notre connaissance de la période ? / Do the Cylindrical-Conical Mesolithic Pits Change Our Understanding of the Period ...... 275

Nathalie Achard-Corompt — Le délicat sujet de la datation des structures sans mobilier / The Tricky Issue of Dating Features that are Devoid of Find ...... 276

Vincent Riquier — L’homme, ce fouisseur ? / Man the Digger? ...... 279

Christophe Laurelut — Recherches actuelles sur le Mésolithique : quelle intégration pour les sites à fosses ? / How Can the Pit Sites Be Incorporated in Current Research on the Mesolithic? ...... 280 Creuser au Mésolithique Digging in the Mesolithic Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Châlons-en-Champagne (29-30 mars 2016) Textes publiés sous la direction de Nathalie Achard-Corompt, Emmanuel Ghesquière et Vincent Riquier Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2017 (Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 12), p. 211-223 www.prehistoire.org ISSN : 2263-3847 – ISBN : 2-913745-2-913745-73-3

Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and Ireland Comparative Perspectives on a Widespread Practice

Edward Blinkhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren

Abstract: In recent years development-led excavations have transformed regional Mesolithic datasets across Britain and Ireland. Stud- ies of the results of these projects have highlighted the frequency with which supposedly mundane features such as pits are encountered on Mesolithic sites. Whilst pits have long been recognised on individual sites, it is only from analyses of large datasets that it has become possible to identify the ways in which pits and features in general can contribute valuable spatial, artefactual and geoarchae- ological/palaeoenvironmental information to develop our understanding of life in the Mesolithic. This also facilitates comparison with the of both regions, where a rich tradition of pit digging has been well documented archaeologically. Recent reviews of the evidence for pit digging, and the material recovered from pits, in England and Ireland have highlighted the prevalence of these features across a wide range of Mesolithic sites, as well as a diversity of interpretations of their uses. At the same time obstacles preventing complete analysis are presented by a lack of sampling and poor recording. In this paper the authors compare the results of two systematic reviews of Mesolithic pits from England and Ireland, comparing and contrasting these to evidence from Scotland and Wales as appropriate. Both reviews uncovered extensive evidence for the presence of pits at sites of diverse purpose, and in varied landscape settings. The evidence from pit-fills points to various uses including site clear- ance and refuse disposal, deposition and possible caching, and burial. The spatial evidence indicates some interesting trends such as reuse and recutting as well as the presence of pit alignments. While there were similarities between the uses of pits in Ireland and Eng- land, some differences in character were also noted. The comparative perspective offered by this paper emphasises both the diversity of practices involving pits, and the importance of developing suitable future approaches to Mesolithic features.

Keywords : Mesolithic, pits, alignments, British Isles, Ireland, United Kingdom, funerary practice, deposition, refuse.

Le creusement et comblement de fosses durant le Mésolithique en Angleterre et en Irlande : perspectives comparatives sur une pratique très répandue

Résumé : Ces dernières années, le développement de l’archéologie préventive a transformé le corpus des données concernant le Méso- lithique régional en Grande-Bretagne et en Irlande. Les études liées aux résultats de ces fouilles ont révélé l’occurrence fréquente de structures supposément banales comme des fosses sur les sites mésolithiques. Alors que ces fosses ont été décrites depuis longtemps sur des sites individuels, c’est seulement à partir des analyses de vastes ensembles de données qu’il est devenu possible de mettre en évi- dence la manière dont ces fosses – et d’autres aspects en général – pouvaient contribuer utilement à développer nos connaissances sur la vie au Néolithique à travers des informations spatiales, géo-archéologiques et paléo-environnementales ainsi que grâce aux artefacts. Ceci facilite aussi les comparaisons avec le Néolithique dans ces deux régions pour lesquelles le creusement de fosses a représenté une riche tradition abondamment documentée par l’archéologie. Le réexamen récent des évidences de creusements de fosses et du mobilier qu’on y a retrouvés, en Angleterre et en Irlande, a mis en évidence la prévalence de ces structures à travers un large éventail de sites mésolithiques, ainsi que la variété des interprétations proposées quant à leurs rôles. Dans le même temps, le manque d’échantillonnage et le piètre enregistrement des données constituent encore un obstacle à une analyse complète. Dans cet article, les auteurs comparent les résultats de deux bilans systématiques des fosses mésolithiques en Angleterre et en Irlande, en les comparant et les contrastant de façon appropriée avec les données concernant l’Écosse et le pays de Galles. Chacun de ces bilans expose l’abondance de fosses retrouvées sur des sites à destination variée, et ce pour une variété de paysage. Le remplissage des fosses indique plusieurs utilisations possibles qui incluent le nettoyage du site, l’élimination des ordures, un rôle de dépôt et potentiellement 212 Edward Bliknhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren

de cache, et l’inhumation. Les données spatiales révèlent des tendances intéressantes comme la réutilisation ou le recreusement ainsi que l’occurrence d’alignements des fosses. Même si il existe des similarités entre l’utilisation des fosses en Irlande et en Angleterre, des caractères différents ont aussi été relevés. Cet article présente une perspective comparative qui souligne à la fois la diversité des pratiques associées à ces fosses ainsi que l’importance qu’il y a de développer dans le futur des approches adaptées aux structures mésolithiques.

Mots clés : Mésolithique, fosses, alignements, Îles Britanniques, Irlande, Royaume-Uni, rites funéraires, dépôts, rejets.

ecent years have seen a transformation in the the data was taken and a database built, comprising three character of archaeological work in Britain and analytical levels: site, pit and fill. The site level inform- RIreland. Fieldwork is dominated by commer- ation concerned geographic location, activity evidence cial archaeological organisations, often working within etc. The pit level information was mainly concerning the a developer-led framework and conducting excavations number, size and morphology of pits. Lastly, the fill level on a scale beyond the capacity of any academic research included information on soils and inclusions found in pits. institution. This has led to a substantial change in the The information from each level was cross referenced so nature of the data available to researchers interested in that, for example, any connections between inclusions the Mesolithic period: broadly defined as beginning early and geographic location could be explored. All published in the Holocene and ending in the centuries surrounding reports from the early twentieth century to 2008 were con- 4000 cal. BC. Unfortunately, in both Britain and Ireland, sulted as part of the study, as were online excavation sum- a strongly market-driven model of archaeological inter- maries which allowed targeted approaches to commercial vention exists, and there is often less integration between contractors. However, no systematic approach to consult- Mesolithic researchers and commercial archaeological ing grey literature was taken, as in E. Blinkhorn’s review. units than might exist in other parts of Europe. At the same The circumstances of excavation seems to have an effect time, regional variation in heritage management structures on the chances of identifying pits in both Ireland (see within the United Kingdom as well as between the United Lawton-Matthews and Warren, 2015, p. 143–144) and Kingdom and Ireland, mean that comparisons between England, with more recent fieldwork, often developer-led, regions are not straightforward. This comparative per- being more likely to have found pits. As discussed below, spective is important, because they are frequently treated this is presumably a product of the scale and character of in isolation. Indeed differences in the lithic the fieldwork undertaken. used in Britain and Ireland have often been used to argue Both reviews asked slightly different questions of the that the areas were different in character. primary data, and therefore we can only make qualitat- ive comparisons here. Data from other regions of Britain, especially Scotland, is currently undergoing synthesis. DATA This material is discussed anecdotally in this paper. Other recent discoveries, and sites that came to light after the completion of the Blinkhorn and Lawton-Matthews’ pro- his paper reviews evidence for pits on Mesolithic sites jects are similarly discussed. Tin Britain and Ireland (fig. 1). It is primarily based on two recent syntheses, both carried out for different pur- poses, and using different methodologies. E. Blinkhorn’s PITS AND THE MESOLITHIC review (Blinkhorn, 2012) of the English data comprised OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND the collation of all accessible developer-led reports relat- ing to the Mesolithic and dating from 1990–2010 by con- sulting each local authority Historic Environment Record rior to the reviews reported here, pits played a lim- (HER) and commercial archaeological units, in addition to Pited role in accounts of the Mesolithic. Woodman, for the conventionally published literature. Although pits were example, in his recent review of the Mesolithic in Ireland not an intentional focus of his project it rapidly became argues that “... the number of sites producing pits, post- clear that, by the very nature of commercial archaeology holes or hearths of Mesolithic date are [sic] exceptionally in England, all cut features would play a central role due to uncommon” (Woodman, 2015, p. 9). Exceptional sites their importance in signalling archaeological presence in have caught people’s attention and are discussed below— a development-led environment where much excavation the Mesolithic pits from Hermitage, Ireland the is conducted by machine. E. Lawton-Matthews’ Master’s pit alignment in England, or the pit complex thesis (Lawton-Matthews, 2012) reviewed evidence for at Warren Field, Aberdeenshire, Scotland which is claimed Mesolithic pits in Ireland specifically, whilst also includ- to have functioned as a ‘time-reckoner’ (Gaffney et al., ing other subsurface features. This was mainly due to the 2013). However, because of their perceived ‘specialness’, fact that many Irish (and English) reports often left doubt these are often treated in isolation from the broader set of about the nature of the (e.g. small pit or a posthole, pit digging practices of which they form just one part. This large irregular pit or possible tree-throw), but also because is unfortunate, as pits are a significant feature of the archae- this allowed a comparison between the treatment of pits ological record of Mesolithic sites in Britain and Ireland. and other subsurface features. A quantitative approach to Pits are such a common and widespread feature of archae- Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and Ireland 213

Fig. 1 – Map of the sites mentioned in the text. Fig. 1 – Carte des sites mentionnés dans le texte. 214 Edward Bliknhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren

ological sites in general that without an understanding of been dated to the Mesolithic by inclusion of typologic- the possible forms, functions and meanings of Mesolithic ally Mesolithic flint with no evidence for later influence. examples a substantial corpus of evidence is left poorly Others, such as at Woodbridge Road (Bishop, 2008) and assessed in developer-funded works, where the period Heathrow have groups of many (11) in close proximity. must compete for resources with more substantial deposits. No data is available for further refinement of chronolo- The comparative lack of attention given to pits in gies of pits within the Mesolithic—few pits were radiocar- Mesolithic research is especially problematic because bon-dated and usually only broad subdivisions were sug- reappraisals of pits in other periods of have pro- gested, unless adequate assessment of the lithics had been duced important new understandings of past lives. In par- undertaken. Although systematically collated data is not ticular, recent years have seen reconsideration of the role available from Scotland or Wales it is clear that pits are a of pits in Neolithic Britain and Ireland. In both regions significant feature of Mesolithic sites in the former. key researchers (Anderson-Whymark and Thomas, 2012; Smyth, 2014) have argued that it is the expansion of developer-led archaeological research that has trans- MORPHOLOGY formed the data available to researchers: as D. Garrow notes, “... the often very large areas its excavations expose, has simply revealed many, many more pits. As a result, it he sizes and shapes of Mesolithic pits as a whole has become necessary to take them seriously.” (Garrow, Tare difficult to classify. A majority are irregular and, 2012, p. 217). Pits are now central to our understanding of more importantly, given significant site truncation and Neolithic practices—as evidence of settlement, commit- post-depositional disturbance, there is only good inform- ment to places, contexts for varied strategies of deposition ation about the basal shape and fill. Furthermore, unlike etc. At times, specific methodological approaches have later prehistoric features, those of the Mesolithic have been used to understand pits, including programmes of been exposed to taphonomic effects, including pedogen- refitting Garrow( et al., 2005). This is not to argue that sis, for many thousands of years longer. Mesolithic pits are the same as Neolithic ones, but the The shapes of the pits vary, but in Ireland most absence of comparable reviews of pits in the Mesolithic appeared as irregular to the excavators. Unfortunately, in of Britain and Ireland unfortunately perpetuates the signi- many instances little information was recorded about the ficant divide that exists between Mesolithic and Neolithic pits: fifty-five pits (52% of the total number of securely research traditions. dated pits) had no information on their profile and thirty- seven (35%) had no plan. Most are sub-circular or irreg- ular in plan with bowl and dish profiles. Pits were varied FREQUENCY in size: some were so small that there was little difference in size between pits and postholes, such as examples from Brecart at 0.10 m depth by 0.15 m diameter, and 0.10 m n Ireland, pits considered likely or confidently to be depth by 0.25 m diameter, labelled as a posthole and a IMesolithic (see Lawton-Matthews and Warren, 2015 pit respectively (Dunlop, 2010; here: fig. );2 others were for methodology) were identified on twenty-nine sites as big as 1.60 m deep by 1.20 m diameter (Granny; see excavated by universities or the commercial sector. Gleeson and Breen, 2011). There are eleven pits over Recent commercial excavations are much more likely to 1.50 m in diameter and eleven pits had a depth of 0.50 have identified pits Lawton-Matthews( and Warren, 2015, m or more. There are some exceptional pits, or possible p. 143–144). Over 25% of sites (n = 14) have only one pit, tree throws, such as the example from Newrath, which is such as at Clowanstown (Mossop and Mossop, 2009), oth- 4.00 m in diameter (Wilkins et al., 2009). No systematic ers many. Total numbers of pits are significantly impacted information is available from the English data, but the by individual sites—with over 50% of pits coming from Irish evidence fits the range found in England. the (Irish) Early Mesolithic site of Mount Sandel—but 137 Information on the re-cutting and re-filling of pits is pits were considered likely, confidently or possibly Meso- rather limited but there is some evidence at sites such as lithic. Although the samples are small, only six early Meso- Mount Sandel. Here pits are regularly recut, but interest- lithic sites had pits whereas the number of Later Mesolithic ingly the recutting often seems to respect the boundaries sites with pits numbered fourteen (four are sites with both of the original, wider, pits. This can be seen in both plan Early and Later dates). No real significance can be given to and profile Woodman,( 1985, p. 16–20). Another possible this trend due to low numbers and overall site frequencies. example of recutting in Ireland was found at Bay Farm In England, E. Blinkhorn’s data (Blinkhorn, 2012) (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 154, fig. 11). Unfortunately shows sixty-six commercial interventions (of 1,280: discussion of differences or similarities in primary and c. 5%) to have identified pits, although many other secondary fills was not common. Recuts of a number of examples were associated with or classified as structures the pits at Warren Field, Scotland (Murray et al., 2009; or tree-throw pits. No overall total of pits is available, but Gaffney et al., 2013) indicate that the feature complex had the number is substantial, especially when non-commer- enduring currency, whereas the recutting of a tree throw cial projects and recent discoveries are included. A num- at Heathrow Terminal 5 (Lewis et al., 2010) is invoked by ber of these comprise interventions where a single pit has the author as evidence for clearance. Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and Ireland 215

interesting patterns, although caution is advisable because lithics are often the only chronologically diagnostic mater- ial culture surviving from the Mesolithic, and because few pits are directly dated. Indeed, there is a dangerous cir- cularity in arguing that these were common inclusions in the past. Lithics can, however, indicate aspects of the pit’s biography. At both Mercer’s Quarry (Hammond, 2005) and Pendell Farm (Lewis and Pine, 2008), sites in close association in Surrey, pits containing high proportions of spall alongside and narrow- assemblages were interpreted as the disposal from knapping events. At the former, the inclusion of burnt pieces was suggested to implicate more than one disposal event. Also in Surrey, refitting of lithics from a feature at St Anne’s Heath School (Lambert, 2007) tie some pieces to a single knapping episode, although the report is equivocal about the origin of the feature, and little supporting information is given (an unfortunately common problem with grey literature in England). In Ireland, some deposits seem to indicate deliberate selection of lithics which were placed in pits. At Belderrig, Co. Mayo, lithics deposited in a shallow pit are larger than other lithics on site (Warren, unpublished Fig. 2 – Pit 776 and posthole 760 from Brecart (reproduced with data), whilst at Bay Farm an unusual pit (or pits) contained the kind permission of Northern Archaeology Consultancy). , flint debris and the only example of chert Fig. 2 – Fosse 776 et trou de piquet 760 de Brecart (reproduit avec from the site (Woodman and Johnson, 1996). l’aimable autorisation de Northern Archaeology Consultancy). Six sites in England returned pits with in the fill although none were definitively demonstrated to be delib- PIT FILLS AND CONTENTS erately placed deposits. Perhaps the most convincing of these is from work on the A140 Scole-Dickleburgh Road Improvement Project ((NAU, 1994) where a small pit yiel- primary difficulty in assessing biographies for pits and ded two cores, a possible tip and a concentration Athe role they played in Mesolithic lives is the difficulty of blades and flakes “apparently from one knapping event”, of understanding how they were filled and which sediment- as well as a small . As yet, the Hermitage site is the ary process was active contemporary with abandonment. only example in Ireland to have yielded an axe from a pit In many instances excavation reports lack clarity on the (see fig. 3). Most intriguing of the pits with worked lithics processes by which cultural materials became incorpor- included in the fill is the small shallow pit from Saltwood ated into pits, and detailed geoarchaeological assessments Tunnel, on the line of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1), (such as the use of soil micromorphology and detailed from which a group of eight hollow based microliths were consideration of bioturbation) are rare. This is unfortunate, recovered, their uniformity of manufacture and distribution as P. Woodman (Woodman, 1985) has demonstrated that being interpreted as contemporaneous deposition, “in a field observations of the composition of fills of Mesolithic bag, or hafted as a composite item” (McKinley et al., 2006, pits can be problematic: with soil samples from apparently p. 7). Several of the microliths had broken tips suggestive homogenous fills having different origins, or supposedly of damage through use. It was also noted by the excavator different fills being very similar in character. Taking field that the pit had filled substantially by the time the lithics observations at first hand, the majority of Irish pits (60.3%) were deposited, although only a single fill was recorded have only one fill, although some are very complex and and evidence of bioturbation may have reworked the flints. show evidence for recutting. The situation in England is It is surely not too much of an interpretative leap to suggest similar. It is difficult to establish the reasons why, beyond that the burial of these flints represents something more ephemerality, Mesolithic pits are frequently assigned only than casual inclusion during natural sedimentation, as is one fill and perhaps reflects on the value of - geoarchae frequently implicated as the process by which Mesolithic ological assessment in determining more nuanced inter- lithics become included in feature fills. pretations of negative features. The mobility of excavat- ors between Britain and Ireland may also be invoked as a Burnt deposits reason for degrees of similarity in the records produced. While no examples from Ireland are recorded, the inclu- Lithics sion of burnt deposits in pits at a number of sites in Eng- land points to clearance of camp refuse. A sub-rectangular The most commonly found cultural inclusions in Meso- pit at Charnham Lane, Hungerford (Ford, 2002) displayed lithic pits are Mesolithic lithics. This demonstrates some undercut sides and was filled with burnt flint and struck 216 Edward Bliknhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren

unburnt blades and flakes of Later Mesolithic type, and carbonised remains of apple and hazel. At Sonning Eye Quarry in Oxfordshire (Ford, 2004) fire reddened clay was retrieved alongside flints of Late Mesolithic or Early Neo- lithic type. Further burnt clay was retrieved from similar assemblages from work at Nosterfield Dickson( and Hop- kinson, 2011) and, most convincingly, from the A27 West- hampnett Bypass in West Sussex (Fitzpatrick et al., 2008). A total of 1,539 Deepcar-type lithics were recovered from nine pits in two groups, although the reporting is unfor- tunately vague about how the lithics came to be included in the features. Other shallow pits, such as at Uffington Estate, Lincolnshire (Hall and Ford, 1991) and Lind- ley Moor, Huddersfield (NAA, 2001) are considered to represent hearths, or in situ burning events based on the fired appearance of the natural geology. However, as with lithic inclusions, caution in interpreting -pits may be appropriate (Crombé et al., 2015).

Mortuary practices Fig. 3 – Reconstruction drawing of pit A from Hermitage in- A small number of pits held human bones. At Hermitage, cluding post and axe (reproduced with the kind permission of Co. Limerick, three cremation pits were dated to the Meso- Tracy Collins, Aegis Archaeology Limited). lithic. The most notable example included the cremated Fig. 3 – Dessin de reconstitution de la fosse A de Hermitage remains of an adult male, placed with a polished stone axe incluant un pieu et une hache (reproduit avec l’aimable permis- into a pit which was marked by a post (Collins 2009; Collins sion de Tracy Collins, Aegis Archaeology Limited). and Coyne, 2003 and 2006; here: fig. ). 3 At Langford, Essex cremated bone was placed within a pit of c. 1 m dia- CLUSTERS, ALIGNMENTS, MARKERS meter which is argued to have been deliberately backfilled at c. 5600 cal. BC on the basis of consistent radiocarbon dates on cremated human bone and oak charcoal. Analysis it alignments, which are well established in later peri- of the bone demonstrated mastery of pyrotechnology, as at Pods, are very slowly gaining recognition as a feature Hermitage, and primary deposition of the fired remains and of Mesolithic landscapes in Britain and possibly Ireland. , capped by redeposited natural, suggests intentional Three large pits aligned east-west in the car park at Stone- deposition and rapid backfilling Gilmour( and Loe, 2015). were found to exhibit post pipes of substantial pine inserts up to 0.80 m in diameter, and a further similarly aligned pit and tree-throw, also at Stonehenge (Cleal UP-CAST et al., 1995), may be the first evidence for monumental landscapes in Britain during the Holocene. Although focus naturally rests on the posts that once stood in these he counterpoint to pit-fills is of course the up-cast pits, and rotted in situ, valuable palaeoenvironmental ana- Tproduced during their initial excavation. Apart from lyses were performed on the pit fills (in passing, it should those instances where redeposited geological sediment is be noted that such analyses are rarely reported for Meso- interpreted as the deliberate backfill of pits, often as part lithic pits in Britain and Ireland). Palynology and mol- of a single episode comprising pit excavation-anthropo- luscan analysis established an open mixed pine and hazel genic use or placement of artefacts-backfilling, the up-cast woodland which was presumed to have been cleared at from pits is very rarely considered in either academic or the time of pit-digging and following a hiatus (perhaps commercially-derived literature. Perhaps this is due to a stabilisation) in the Later Mesolithic, the pits continued to supposed lack of value, or the difficulty in identifying this fill during the time of the construction of the material against the lithologically identical undisturbed at Stonehenge, and were thus visible. The posts have been geology. Only in the discussion of the burnt flint-filled pits posited as similar to totem poles (ibid) or cultural markers at Terminal 5, Heathrow (Lewis et al., 2010) was up-cast (Allen and Gardiner, 2002) and finds like the Late Meso- briefly entertained as being significant; in this instance the lithic/Early Neolithic timber with potentially anthropo- low mounds produced by pit digging were speculated to genic markings from Maerdy windfarm in the Rhondda, have reinforced the importance of the place (see below). Wales (BBC News, 2013) could point towards a land- Perhaps the up-cast from pit digging events carried more scape augmented by richly decorated wooden features. significance than we could safely interpret from currently Echoes of the longevity of Mesolithic features into published sites although we would need particularly fortu- later periods is evident at Warren Field, Aberdeenshire, nately sealed deposits to test this. where a Mesolithic pit alignment with a claimed astro- Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and Ireland 217

nomical function (Gaffney et al., 2013) was open in the have been left open. A single radiocarbon date from the early Neolithic during the construction of a timber hall upper fill of one of the pits (4675 ± 60 cal. BC) is clearly nearby. The substantial Mesolithic pits contained distinct- very Late Mesolithic and with an absence of comparanda, ive minerals resulting from the exploitation of a geolo- the alignment was considered to be Neolithic (Dickson gical outcrop some 40 km from the site (Murray et al., and Hopkinson, 2011). Both examples serve as reminders 2009), and their formation is claimed to reflect the rela- of the importance of keeping potentially significant data tionship between celestial movements and the local mont- in discursive circulation; both sites may have attracted ane topography. At both Warren Field and Stonehenge more Mesolithic-specific resources had alignments been arguments highlighting the significance of the landscape a recognised feature class at the time of excavation. context of pits are important observations, albeit observa- Occasionally, pits appear to have been marked by the tions steeped in a long tradition of identifying site ‘types’ erection of a post but served wider functions than simply and their position within a system. being a post-pit. The cremation at Hermitage was dis- Further possible examples are to be found in North cussed above, and a second example from Mullinabro, Yorkshire, though neither has been securely demonstrated morphologically different in its linear plan, was recorded to be Mesolithic. Large empty pits at Cooks Quarry in the as having a central stake hole (Wren, 2006, p. 4). Similar Vale of Pickering are tentatively interpreted as forming an examples may have been present at Sutton, Co. Dublin, avenue and are postulated as Mesolithic by the excavator although this may be a post-hole truncated by a later pit (Powlesland, 2004) although the pits await radiocarbon (Mitchell, 1956, p. 7), as at Brecart, Co. Antrim (Dunlop, dating. Later Mesolithic activity at the quarry is attested 2010, p. 75). No examples from England were identified. to by lithic concentrations alongside a relic stream chan- An emergent group of sites comprises groups of nel in an extensively excavated landscape otherwise pits, reminiscent of the recognition at the turn of the densely populated by later archaeology. The double pit millennium of the Neolithic ‘mundane’ pit digging phe- alignment at Nosterfield, close to the magnificent Neo- nomenon. Sites like Heathrow Terminal 5 and Wood- lithic Thornborough , was composed of two rows bridge Road mentioned above might qualify, although about 25.50 m apart with a combined total of seventeen others such as Falmer Stadium (Garland, 2012) and pits running northwest-southeast for 79 m. The pits meas- North Park Farm, Bletchingley (see Jones, 2013) seem ured between 3.02 m and 1.45 m in length and a maximum to suggest pit groups can be differently configured, and of 2.45 m in depth, and exhibited a variety of fill systems. for different reasons (both sites await full publication). Whilst some were dug, filled and recut, others appear to At Falmer, five clusters of pits (fig. 4) were found to con-

Fig. 4 – Plan of Mesolithic pits from Falmer Stadium (reproduced with the kind permission of Archaeology South-East, UCL Institute of Archaeology). Fig. 4 – Plan des fosses mésolithiques de Falmer Stadium (reproduit avec l’aimable autorisation d’Archaeology South-East, UCL, Institute of Archaeology). 218 Edward Bliknhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren

tain significant flint assemblages, as well as hazelnut shell Pits discovered on river terraces at Woodbridge Road radiocarbon dated to the 7th millennium cal. BC. The pits (Bishop, 2008) and tree throws at Bath Spa (Davenport were subround, between approximately 0.6 m and 1.3 m et al., 2007) were interpreted as providing access to raw in diameter and depth (fig. 5), and are interpreted as filling material, the products of which were found concentrated rapidly, marking the result of repeated visits to a woodland at each site. Both sites reinforce the difficulties in estab- clearing prior to hunting (Garland 2012). Mount Sandel lishing an anthropogenic origin for ephemeral features, yet might, in some circumstances, be recognised as a site of both demonstrate unequivocal human action with on-site grouped pits but has instead been formulated as structural primary knapping of local material. Furthermore, both evidence. sites illustrate the pit/tree-throw as more than a monolithic archaeological entity, where the feature is created naturally or deliberately, provides access to deposits, supplies a focus INTERPRETATIONS for activity, and acts as an archaeological capture point. Indeed, the boundary between pits and tree throws is some- times difficult to identify: some tree throws were marked he evidence therefore suggests that pits were an by pits, for example at Mount Sandel (Woodman, 1985, Timportant facet of life in the Mesolithic period in p. 30) and possibly Bay Farm (Woodman and Johnson, Britain and Ireland, and that there are many similarit- 1996, p. 157), and some seem to have contained deliber- ies between the two regions. But the physical remains ate, or at least remarkable, deposits (Mossop, 2009, p. 15). of these are ephemeral, and pits have not always been Again at Mount Sandel, a deposit of elongated pebbles adequately assessed in excavation or archival work, and it was found in the fill of a tree-throw while two examples is possible that more detailed consideration of their form- of Moynagh points, exceptionally rare points, ation would provide sharper indications of use. both came from tree-throws (at Belderrig and Mullinabro). The simplest interpretative group, based on contents, In other periods and regions connections have already been is mortuary. Hermitage and Langford provide the clearest made between patterns of deposition in pits and tree-throws examples of these, and it is important to note that in both (Anderson-Whymark, 2012; see also Evans et al., 1999 for cases, prior to obtaining radiocarbon dates the excavators discussions of tree-throws in prehistory). expected the to be Bronze Age: it is very likely A wide variety of other interpretations, some noted that a systematic approach to the dating of cremated bone above, have been based primarily on the contents of with no clear artefactual associations from pits would the fill. Thus pits are considered to have played a role reveal further Mesolithic evidence. Other sites have a in storage, or in depositing settlement refuse. Over the possible association with funerary processes. Pit B at past decade, there has been a growing acceptance of ritual Kilham , East Yorkshire, found beneath the associations with Mesolithic deposition (Blinkhorn and Neolithic building phase is the only other known poten- Little, forthcoming; see also Chatterton, 2006). Again, tially Mesolithic feature with associated bone. Excavated such arguments are hampered by precedence, but espe- by T. Manby (Manby, 1976), the bone remains undated cially by traditional research questions prioritising eco- (Meiklejohn et al., 2011) and C. Conneller (Conneller, nomic aspects of hunter-gatherer life. While Star Carr 2006) has pointed to co-mingling of Mesolithic and Neo- is possibly the best known example of a site argued to lithic archaeology in the buried soil as reason to reserve evidence Mesolithic ritual deposition, the only published judgement on the date. The association with monumental ‘pit’ has been interpreted as a ‘house’ (Conneller et al., architecture however, or at least the formal marking of 2012). Overall, the majority of Mesolithic sites in Ireland space, is tantalising. and Britain comprise lithic scatters, often disturbed thus The link between Mesolithic pits and later monuments reinforcing familiar interpretations. is continued by the Heathrow pit group around which the The oldest classification of Mesolithic pits in- Eng Neolithic Stanwell monument developed along a land has been the ‘pit-dwelling’ like Selmeston (Clark, river terrace (Lewis et al., 2010), although the extent to 1934), Farnham (Clark and Rankine, 1939) and Abinger which continuity is represented is probably unknowable (Leakey, 1951). These interpretations were received from due to a time lag of up to 2,000 years. There are echoes continental Europe (ultimately from Köln-Lindenthal) as here too of the Stonehenge landscape (Cleal et al., 1995) convenient means to explain concentrations of lithics in where substantial post-pits have been interpreted as hav- cut features and to provide trans-European associations. ing held similarly substantial pine posts between the mid- The critiques provided by R. R. Newell (Newell, 1981) 9th and late 8th millennia cal. BC, the ‘cultural markers’ and P. Woodman (Woodman, 1985) served as a death of M. Allen and J. Gardiner (Allen and Gardiner, 2002). knell for such interpretations, until recently at least and There is a temptation to relate incidental archaeology dated without the associated political baggage. As interpreta- millennia apart, in the same landscape – recent excavations tions of these features were ‘down-graded’ to tree-throws, of Mesolithic remains at Blick Mead at Amesbury in the the value of the negative feature as an interpretative tool wider Stonehenge landscape is testament to this (Jacques seems to have also been diminished; contents alone and Phillips, 2014). However, it would be careless to com- delivered ‘data’. Considering the use of natural features pletely disregard the landscape context and the potential in the Irish and British Mesolithic, the wholesale rejec- longevity of special associations with specific places. tion of the ‘pit-dwelling’ demands reconsideration. Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and Ireland 219

Fig. 5 – Sections and photographs of Mesolithic pits from Falmer Stadium (reproduced with the kind permission of Archaeology South-East, UCL Institute of Archaeology). Fig. 5 – Coupes et photographies des fosses mésolithiques du site de Falmer Stadium (reproduit avec l’aimable autorisation d’Ar- chaeology South-East, UCL, Institute of Archaeology). 220 Edward Bliknhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren

DISCUSSION ficulties in prospecting for primary context Mesolithic A FUTURE FOR MESOLITHIC PITS sites have equally compounded the lack of precedence for associating negative features with Mesolithic activ- ity. Overcoming this reticence is crucial if resources are key problem with Mesolithic pits in Britain and to be directed towards understanding the Mesolithic in a A Ireland, specifically in a developer-led context, is commercial environment. the early identification of features as being Mesolithic. Finally, it is important to note that experimental Time and money pressures on these projects at all stages approaches would be of benefit. Given the digging tech- (pre-determination, post-determination and mitigation) nologies available, what length of time would it take to and the plural multi-period research questions driving excavate some of the pits found on Mesolithic sites? the archaeology often side-line the more ‘difficult’/‘eph- How plausible are some of the claims for storage func- emeral’ deposits which most often rely on ‘diagnostic’ tions? artefacts to date the feature. Much of the time, Meso- lithic lithics are regarded as ‘residual’ or a background scatter reworked into later features, and are infrequently CONCLUSION diagnostic. Furthermore, until identified as needing spe- cial attention, one feature will be dealt with the same as the next, most commonly half-sectioned without 3D esolithic pits are an important and frequent fea- recording of artefacts and depending on the prowess of Mture of the period in both Britain and Ireland. In the excavator, variable attention to the biography of the both areas there are some problems with the recording pit. Unfortunately, many pits are not recognised as being of these features in the field, and this provides limits Mesolithic until after their excavation. The quality of to interpretation. Mesolithic pits in Ireland and Bri- data that is being produced is therefore understandably tain may not be the direct comparanda of those in the variable. The sites mentioned in this paper are high- Neolithic (though this certainly deserves more thor- lighted as a product of the quality of recognition in the ough investigation), and nor should they be regarded field (usually), or quality or uniqueness of the depos- as a single phenomenon. It is difficult to compare its uncovered. Few academic projects have focused on the records of two periods across such an important understanding Mesolithic features, although Bayesian transition when so little research has been conducted modelling of dates from. Mount Sandel stands out as on the earlier material. However, minimally, we can highlighting the potential of feature-based analyses argue that pits were varied in kind and fulfilled var- in developing interpretations (Bayliss and Woodman, ied functions. Many of these were assumedly fairly 2009). routine in character: the deposition of waste, or storage Minimally, it would be helpful to see increased atten- of resources. But at times we can identify pits caught tion paid to the recording of pits in the field. This should up in what must have been more ritualised, or dramatic include 3D recording of artefacts, increased application moments. We see this strikingly in the use of pits as of refitting and the application of geoarchaeological tech- places to deposit cremated bone, sometimes with grave niques to better understand the processes and temporalit- goods and sometimes with markers, and perhaps less ies of pit fills. For example, R. Loveday and M. Beamish strikingly in the formal deposition of waste. Pit align- argue many Neolithic pits are the remains of turf ovens, ments seem to have made reference to important fea- citing micromorphological evidence that some ‘’ tures of the surrounding landscape, and in some cases material within pits is decayed turf (Loveday and Beam- appear to have been built in places that were signific- ish, 2012). ant many thousands of years later. For many pits, how- More systematic approaches to dating pits would be ever, we are unable to identify their role in Mesolithic helpful, and would likely reveal more Mesolithic pits. life. These are likely to have been varied: the temporal Standardised terminology and excavation procedures range encompasses thousands of years, and many dif- would facilitate comparison, but it is difficult to see ferent human groups separated at least by space and how this might be achieved. Given the indications that lithic . Greater analytical attention to pits landscape settings are important for at least some pits would perhaps provide new perspectives on those dif- it would be important to examine this aspect in more ferent groups of hunter-gatherers. detail. It is apparent, from the commercially derived reports Acknowledgements: We would like to extend our thanks to at least, that there is a historical reticence to assign a the conference organisers for inviting our contribution. The Mesolithic date to negative features. Unlike later peri- research underlying Blinkhorn’s contribution was part funded ods for which diagnostic ceramics have traditionally by an Arts and Humanities Research Council and English Her- been used to date features, the Mesolithic in Britain and itage (now Historic England) Collaborative Doctoral Award. Ireland offers little to date features confidently unless Thanks are also due to Lianne Heaney and Colin Dunlop of within a secure (and dated) geoarchaeological context. Northern Archaeology Consultancy for help with data and The vertical mobility of lithics on some geologies (for images, both during Lawton-Matthews’ research and the writ- example at Hengistbury Head; Barton, 1992), and dif- ing of this paper. Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and Ireland 221

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Allen M. J., Gardiner J. (2002) – A Sense of Time: Cul- Collins T., Coyne F. (2003) – Fire and Water: Early Meso- tural Markers in the Mesolithic of Southern England?, in lithic Cremations at Castleconnell, Co. Limerick, Archae- B. David and M. Wilson (eds.), Inscribed Landscapes: ology Ireland, 17, 2, p. 24 –27. Marking and Making Place, Honolulu, University of Collins T., Coyne F. (2006) – As Old as We Felt, Archaeology Hawaii Press, p. 139 –53. Ireland, 20, 4, p. 21. Anderson E., Woodman P. C., Johnson G. (1996) – Excav- Conneller C. (2006) – Death, in C. Conneller and G. War- ations at Bay Farm 1, Carnlough, Co. Antrim and the Study ren (eds.), Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: New Approaches, of the ‘Larnian’ Technology, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Stroud, Tempus, p. 139 –64. Academy, 96, 6, p. 137 –235. Conneller C., Milner N., Taylor B., Taylor M. (2012) – Anderson-Whymark H., Thomas J. (2012) – Regional Per- Substantial Settlement in the European Early Mesolithic: spectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition: Beyond the Mundane, New Research at Star Carr, Antiquity, 86, 334, p. 1004 –20. Oxford, Oxbow Books (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers, 12), 225 p. Crombé P., Langohr R., Louwagie G. (2015) – Mesolithic hearth-pits: fact or fantasy? A reassessment based on the Barton R. N. E. (1992) – Hengistbury Head, Dorset, 2. The evidence from the sites of Doel and Verrebroek (Belgium), Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic Sites, Oxford, Journal of Archaeological Science, 61, p. 158 –71. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology (OUCA Monographs, 34), 299 p. Davenport P., Poole C., Jordan D. (2007) – Archaeology in Bath: Excavations at the New Royal Baths (the Spa) and Bayliss A., Woodman P. C. (2009) – A New Bayesian Chro- Bellott’s Hospital 1998 –1999, Oxford, Oxford University nology for Mesolithic Occupation at Mount Sandel, North- Press (Oxford Archaeology Monographs, 3), 182 p. ern Ireland, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 75, Dickson A., Hopkinson G p. 101-–23. . (2011) – Seventeen Years of Archaeological Investigations at Nosterfield Quarry, North BBC News (2013) – Carved Wooden Post Found Yorkshire, York, Mike Griffiths and Associates, 397 p. at Rhondda Wind Farm, BBC News Wales, http://www.bbc. Dunlop C. (2010) – The A6 Toome Bypass, Co. Antrim: archae- co.uk/news/uk-wales-23349783 [on line]. ological excavation report with contributions by Prof. Peter Bishop B. (2008) – A Microlithic from Woodbridge Woodman and Catherine Dunne, final excavation report, Road, Guildford, Surrey Archaeological Collections, 94, Northern Archaeological Consultancy Belfast. p. 125 –57. Evans C., Pollard J., Knight M. (1999) – Life in the Woods: Blinkhorn E. H. (2012) – The Mesolithic and the Planning Tree-Throws, ‘Settlement’ and Forest Cognition, Oxford Process in England, doctoral thesis, University of York, Journal of Archaeology, 18, 3, p. 241 –54. 398 p. Ford S. (2002) – Charnham Lane, Hungerford, Berkshire: Blinkhorn E. H., Little A. (forthcoming) – Being Ritual: Archaeological Investigations 1988 –1997, Reading, Identifying Ritual Behaviour within an Emphemeral Mater- Thames Valley Archaeological Services (Thames Valley ial Record, Journal of World Archaeology. Archaeological Services Monographs, 1), 95 p. Chatterton R. (2006) – Ritual, in C. Conneller and G. War- Fitzpatrick A. P., Powell A. B., Allen M. J. (2008) – ren (eds.), Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: New Approaches, Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 West- Stroud, Tempus, p. 101 –20. hampnett Bypass West Sussex, 1992: Volume 1, Salisbury, The Trust for Wessex Archaeology (Wessex Archaeology Clark J. G. D. (1934) – A Late Mesolithic Settlement at Selme- Report, 21), 284 p. ston, Sussex, Antiquaries Journal, 14, p. 134 –58. Gaffney V., Fitch S., Ramsey E., Yorston R., Ch’ng E., Clark J. G. D., Rankine W. F. (1939) – Excavations at Baldwin E., Bates R., Gaffney C., Ruggles C., Spar- Farnham, Surrey (1937 –38): the Horsham Culture and the row T., Mcmillan A., Cowley D., Fraser S., Mur- Question of Mesolithic Dwellings, Proceedings of the Pre- ray C., Murray H., Hopla E., Howard A. (2013) – Time historic Society, 5, p. 61 –118. and a Place: A Luni-Solar ‘Time-Reckoner’ from 8th Mil- Cleal R. M. J., Walker K. E., Montague R. (1995) – Stone- lennium BC Scotland, Internet Archaeology, 34, http://dx. henge in Its Landscape: The Twentieth Century Excava- doi.org/10.11141/ia.34.1 [online]. tions, London, English Heritage (English Heritage Archae- Garland N. (2012) – Mesolithic and Late Neolithic/Bronze ological Report, 10), 632 p. Age Activity on the Site of the American Express Community Stadium, Falmer, East Sussex, ASE report no. 2012162, Collins T. (2009) – Hermitage, Ireland: Life and Death on Portslade, Archaeology South-East. the Western Edge of Europe, in S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds.), Mesolithic Horizons: Garrow D., Beadsmore E., Knight M. (2005) – Pit Clusters Papers Presented at the Seventh International Conference and the Temporality of Occupation: an Earlier Neolithic on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, Oxford, Oxbow Site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk, Proceedings of the Books, p. 876 –79. Prehistoric Society, 71, p. 139 –57. 222 Edward Bliknhorn, Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews and Graeme Warren

Garrow D. (2012) – Concluding Discussion: Pits and Per- Manby T. G. (1976) – Excavation of the Kilham Long Barrow, spective, in H. Lamdin-Whymark and J. Thomas (eds.), East Riding of Yorkshire (Humberside N), Proceedings of Regional Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition: Beyond the Prehistoric Society, 42, p. 111 –59. the Mundane, Oxford, Oxbow Books, p. 216 –25. Mckinley J., Riddler I., Trevarthen M. (2006) – The Pre- Gilmour N., Loe L (2015) – A Mesolithic Cremation-Related historic, Roman and Anglo-Saxon Funerary Landscape at Deposit from Langford, Essex, England: a First for the Brit- Saltwood Tunnel, Kent, Oxford, Oxford Wessex Archae- ish Mesolithic, Mesolithic Miscellany, 23, 2, p. 55 –57. ology Joint Venture (London and Continental Railways), Gleeson C., Breen G., (2006) – N25 Waterford Bypass, doi:10.5284/1008823 [online]. Contract 3: Final Report on Archaeological Investigations Meiklejohn C., Chamberlain A. T., Schulting R. J. (2011) at Sites 21-23, in the Townland of Granny, Co. Kilkenny, – Radiocarbon Dating of Mesolithic Human Remains in excavation report, Headland Archaeology, Edinburgh. Great Britain, Mesolithic Miscellany, 21, p. 20 –58. Hall M., Ford S. (1991) – Uffington Estate, Uffington, near Mitchell G. F. (1956) – An Early Kitchen-Midden at Sutton, Stamford, Lincolnshire. An Archaeological Evaluation, Co. Dublin (Studies in Irish Quaternary Deposits: No. 12), Report 91/16, excavation report, Thames Valley Archaeolo- The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, gical Services, Reading. 86, 1, p. 1 –26. Hammond S. (2005) – Pipeline Route: Mercers Quarry, Mer- Mitchell G. F. (1972) – Further Excavations of the Early stham to North Park Farm Quarry, Godstone, Surrey. An Kitchen-Midden at Sutton, Do. Dublin, The Journal of the Archaeological Evaluation. 05/29, excavation report, Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 102, 2, p. 151 –59. Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading, 24 p. Mossop M. (2009) – Lakeside Developments in County Meath, Jacques D., Phillips T. (2014) – Mesolithic Settlement near Ireland: a Late Mesolithic Fishing Platform and Possible Stonehenge: Excavations at Blick Mead, Vespasian’s Camp, Mooring at Clowanstown 1, in S. McCartan, R. Schulting, Amesbury, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds.), Mesolithic Horizons: Magazine, 107, p. 7 –27. Papers Presented at the Seventh International Conference Jones P. (2013) – A Mesolithic ‘Persistent Place’ at North Park on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, Oxford, Oxbow Farm, Bletchingley Surrey, Woking - Portslade, Spoilheap Books, p. 895 –99. Publications (Spoilheap Monograph 8), 122 p. Mossop M., Mossop E. (2009) – M3 Clonee-North of Kells: Lambert R. (2007) – An Archaeological Evaluation on the Contract 2 Dunshaughlin – Navan, Report on the Archae- Site of the New Residential Development at St. Ann’s Heath ological Excavation of Clowanstown 1, Co. Meath, final School, Sandhills Lane, Virginia Water, Surrey, excavation excavation report (Ministerial Directions No. A008/011 report, Surrey County Archaeological Unit, Woking. E3064), http://www.m3motorway.ie/Archaeology/Sec- Lawton-Matthews E. (2012) – In the Pits. Exploring Pits, tion2/Clowanstown1/ [online]. Caching and Deposition in the Irish Mesolithic, master Murray H. K., Murray J. C., Fraser S. M. (2009) – A Tale of thesis, University College Dublin. the Unknown Unknowns: a Mesolithic Pit Alignment and a Lawton-Matthews E., Warren G. (2015) – Pits in the Irish Neolithic timber hall at Warren Field, Crathes, Aberdeen- Mesolithic, in N. Bicho, C. Detry, T. Douglas Price and shire, Oxford, Oxbow, 144 p. E. Cunha (eds.), Muge150th: the 150th Anniversary of the NAA (2001) – Lindley Moor, Huddersfield. Archaeological Discovery of Mesolithic Shellmiddens, Newcastle upon Excavation Report, NAA 00/27, excavation report, Northern Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, vol. 2, p. 139 –52. Archaeological Associates, Barnard Castle. Leakey L. S. B. (1951) – Preliminary Excavations of a Meso- NAU (1994) – A140 Scole to Dickleburgh Road Improvement lithic Site at Abinger Common, Surrey, Guildford, Surrey Project: Assessment Report, excavation report, Norfolk Archaeological Society (Surrey Archaeological Society Archaeological Unit, Norwich, 122 p. Research Paper, 3), 44 p. Newell R. R Lewis J., Pine J. (2008) – Pendell Farm, Bletchingley, Surrey: . (1981) – Mesolithic Dwelling Structures: An Archaeological Evaluation, Phase 1, 08/13, excavation Fact and Fantasy, in B. Gramsch (ed.), Mesolithikum in report, Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading, Europa, II, proceedings of the international conference 41 p. (Potsdam, 3-8 April 1978), Potsdam, Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- Lewis J., Leivers M., Brown L., Smith A., Cramp K., und Frühgeschichte Potsdam 14/15), p. 235 –84. Mepham L., Phillpotts C. (2010) – Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 Excava- Powlesland D. (2004) – Excavations Undertaken Ahead of tions. Volume 2, Oxford and Salisbury, Framework Archae- Aggregates Extraction at Cook’s Quarry, West Heslerton, ology (Framework Archaeology Monograph, 3), 416 p. excavation interim report, Landscape Research Centre, Yedingham, 11 p. Loveday R. E., Beamish M. G. (2012) – Preservation and the Pit Problem: Some Examples from the Middle Trent Valley, Smyth J. (2012) – Breaking Ground: an Overview of Pits and in H. Anderson-Whymark and J. Thomas (eds.), Regional Pit-Digging in Neolithic Ireland, in H. Anderson-Whymark Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition: Beyond the and J. Thomas (eds.), Regional Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Mundane, Oxford, Oxbow Books (Neolithic Studies Group Deposition: Beyond the Mundane, Oxford, Oxbow Books Seminar Papers, 12), p. 100 –11. (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers, 12), p. 13 –29. Digging and Filling Pits in the Mesolithic of England and Ireland 223

Smyth J. (2014) – Settlement in the Irish Neolithic: New dis- Edward Blinkhorn coveries at the Edge of Europe, Oxford, Oxbow Books (Pre- historic Society Research Paper, 6), 208 p. Archaeology South-East, Institute of Archaeology, Wilkins B., Timpany S., Drum M. (2009) – N25 Water- ford Bypass, Contract 3: Final Report on Archaeological University College London Investigations at Site 34, in the Townland of Newrath, Co. Gower St., Bloomsbury, Kilkenny, excavation report, Headland Archaeology, Edin- GB-London WC1E 6BT burgh. [email protected] Woodman P. C. (1985) – Excavations at Mount Sandel 1973 –81, Belfast, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Elisabeth Lawton-Matthews Woodman P. C. (2015) – Ireland’s First Settlers: Time and the Arctic Centre, Mesolithic, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 448 p. Groningen Institute of Archaeology Woodman P. C., Johnson G. (1996) – Excavations at Bay Pooststraat 6, Farm 1, Carnlough, Co. Antrim and the Study of the ‘Lar- NL-9712 ER Groningen nian’ Technology, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 96, 6, p. 137 –235. [email protected] Wren J. (2006) – N25 Waterford Bypass, Contract 3: Final Report on Archaeological Investigations at Site 4, in the Graeme Warren Townland of Mullinabro, Co. Kilkenny, final excavation UCD School of Archaeology, report, Headland Archaeology, Edinburgh. University College Dublin, Dublin Stillorgan Rd, Belfield, IE-Dublin 4 [email protected]